Standing Committee E

[Frank Cook in the Chair]

Clause 9

Publication of proposals with consent of Secretary of State

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in clause 9, page 7, line 34, leave out subsection (1).

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 67, in clause 9, page 7, line 34, leave out
‘with the consent of the Secretary of State'.
No. 28, in clause 9, page 7, leave out line 37.
No. 77, in clause 9, page 7, line 40, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall only consent to the publication of proposals under subsection (1) for the establishment of a community or community special school if the local authority can demonstrate to the Secretary of State that the establishment of such a school would lead to substantially better academic results than would be the case for a foundation or foundation special school.'.
No. 181, in clause 9, page 7, line 40, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State may not refuse consent under subsection 1(a) in any case in which the request by the authority for such consent is shown to be supported by parents in such numbers and in such categories as may be prescribed by regulations.'.

Nick Gibb: Subsection (1) of the clause provides that:
“A local education authority in England may with the consent of the Secretary of State publish...proposals to establish”
a new school otherwise than under clause 7—that is, without a competition or having regard to the other clause 7 provisions that apply to competitions.
Clause 9 is a repetition of section 65 of the Education Act 2005, which is more of a safety valve than a section of real substance or importance. According to the regulatory impact assessment, the objective of section 65 is:
“To promote diversity by extending the requirement for secondary school competitions so that competitions are held whenever a new school is proposed unless the Secretary of State decides that a competition is not required in an individual case.”
The section therefore dealt with individual cases and was intended to cover unforeseen exceptions.
The Bill repeals section 65 of the 2005 Act and replaces it with clause 9, which is simply an updated version of section 65, but which relates to primary schools as well as secondary schools. The regulatory impact assessment relating to the Bill confirms that point in paragraph 5.20, stating that:
“The requirement on local authorities to seek the prior consent of the”
Secretary of State
“to propose new community schools is therefore intended to apply only in exceptional circumstances. Similar provisions already exist where the Secretary of State gives consent for the publication of proposals for new schools outside competitions. The purpose of requiring local authorities and others to seek consent is to ensure that there is greater contestability and that local people have the opportunity to consider a range of proposals from different providers when new schools are to be established.”
That paragraph refers to clause 7 as well as clause 9, but it is clear that clause 9 is meant to be used only in exceptional circumstances because the aim of the Bill is to ensure greater contestability when new schools are being proposed.
We agree with that aim, and the purpose of amendment No. 29 is to promote that purpose further. If subsection (1) were removed, local authorities would lose the right to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to establish a new school without going through a competition; clause 9 would apply only to non-local authority proposers of new schools. The amendment would thus make the Bill even stronger and move it further in the direction set out by the Government.
In fact, paragraph 5.17 of the regulatory impact assessment states:
“Under the extensions proposed in the WP, there might be around 100 competitions a year”
under clause 7, but
“This would depend on the frequency with which the Secretary of State exercised her powers to allow proposals for new schools outside a competition.”
I am not necessarily against the Secretary of State using such powers, but it would be helpful if the Minister set out the circumstances in which she envisages those powers being exercised.
Amendment No. 28 is a variation on the theme of amendment No. 29, but instead of removing the whole of subsection (1), it would remove only paragraph (a), which refers to local authorities that wish to establish a new community school. The right of a local authority to establish a new foundation school outside of a competition, with the permission of the Secretary of State, would remain. Again, the amendment would help to achieve the Government’s objective of achieving more diversity of provision.
Amendment No. 77 essentially is the same as the amendment that we tabled in relation to clause 7. It sets out the fall-back position that if the Secretary of State decides not to exercise her veto, the criteria for permitting a local authority to establish another community school will be confined strictly to cases in which there is clear evidence that such a school would achieve better academic results than a foundation school.
I turn to amendment No. 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) and her colleagues, and amendment No. 181, tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Amendment No. 67 is superficially similar to the amendment that the Liberals tabled to clause 7, in that it would remove the need to seek the consent of the Secretary of State if a local authority wishes to establish a new community school. I say “superficially” because, although the amendment is worded similarly to the previous amendment, when applied to clause 9 it would provide local authorities with much greater powers than they have now. It would allow a local authority to set up any type of school without going through the competition process set out in clause 7. I am not sure whether that is what the Liberals intended, but it would take us back to the position before the Education Act 2002. We will therefore oppose the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.
Amendment No. 181 would require the Secretary of State to consent to proposals to establish a new community school if there was parental support. In their response to the Education and Skills Committee’s report on the White Paper, the Government said:
“Where a local authority with a good track record in education proposes a community school that will command the support of parents, the Secretary of State will not normally intervene.”
The purpose of the amendment is presumably to put that commitment into the Bill, but it would do so without the important caveat that the local authority must have a good track record in education. I guess that the hon. Member for Bury, North does not care about that point and is happy for local authorities with a poor track record to continue to establish new schools on the same basis.

David Chaytor: That remark is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. He argued last week that the essence of amendments that I had tabled was little different from the spirit of his amendment that provided for new schools of a particular kind to be established on the vote of a specified number of parents. I assert the importance of the parental voice for one purpose and he asserts it in a different way for a similar purpose, so I do not think that he can argue that he is concerned about standards and I am not.

Nick Gibb: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but his amendment, No. 181, relates to local authorities, not to the wider range of proposers to which our amendments referred, and he has specifically omitted from the amendment any reference to the track record of a local authority, which is important in relation to allowing authorities to establish schools outside a competition.
It is important to remind the Committee of another comment in the Government’s response to the Select Committee. The Government stated:
“It is important that local authorities seriously consider all alternatives to secure the best education for their community, however, and do not just promote local authority community schools as the default option.”
In their application to clause 9, amendments Nos. 181 and 67 would create the same problem: they would allow local authorities to bypass a competition under clause 7, which would undermine the principle that local authorities should consider all alternatives to secure the best possible education for their community, not just promote local authority community schools. As such, if the hon. Gentleman presses his amendment, we will oppose it.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.

Sarah Teather: We accept that the clause is intended only to apply in special circumstances, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister what those circumstances will be.
Amendment No. 67 is not intended to allow local authorities to get around the need for a competition. However, clause 9 allows the Secretary of State to get around that need. Our argument is that even in those special circumstances, the local authority is best placed to decide what is most appropriate for its area. We made that argument on clause 7 and I do not intend to rehearse at great length points that I have already made in Committee, except to say that we believe that the proper place for strategic planning of education is within the local authority. It is the elected tier of government that is closest to the decisions that have to be made and closest to the people whose lives are affected by those decisions.
Localism depends on a willingness to let go. It is true that the implications of our policy are that in certain areas a Labour council or a Conservative council might make decisions with which we disagree. We accept that. That is the nature of localism. If we disagree, we will campaign on a local level to remove that local council. That is what democracy is all about. We believe that even in special circumstances—I hope that the Minister will elucidate those—it is still for the local authority to make the decisions on what schools best fit the local area.

David Chaytor: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 181. In one sense we are repeating the arguments that we went through on an earlier clause. It is important that parents have a voice in the decision, but that voice should not be used in a systematic way to allow a small and unrepresentative group of parents to undermine the broader democratic processes. That is why my amendment does not specify a minimum number of parents, but allows for the numbers of parents and the categories of parents to be specified in regulations.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said that there was no reference to the quality of the local education authority, but there is not always a direct relationship between the quality and the performance of the local education authority and the quality and the performance of individual schools within that authority. If there were such a direct relationship life would be much simpler, but there are many schools of outstanding quality within local education authorities with poor performance ratings, and vice versa.

Nick Gibb: To pick up on the point that the hon. Gentleman made just before he came on to that point, he stated proudly that his amendment does not specify the number of parents that would be required to demonstrate support and that that would be specified in regulations. Does he not feel that as an elected Member of Parliament he should have a say in what the Government would propose in those regulations, and does he have a view that he can express now?

David Chaytor: No, I honestly do not feel qualified to decide whether 20, 30 or 40 per cent. or 50, 70 or 90 parents is the right threshold. The matter needs more consideration, which is why it is more appropriate for secondary legislation.
On the question of the quality threshold of the local authority, my amendment has the advantage that by allowing for further consideration to be given to the exact number and category of parents who would be able to exercise their voice in this way, we can reasonably and safely assume that if a large group of parents were overwhelmingly in favour of a new community school, it would reflect very effectively the quality of that LEA. If parents had no confidence in the performance of their LEA, presumably they would not sign up to the cause of a new community school. That is an important point. We have to trust the judgment of parents. In one sense it is rather patronising to assume that parents would sign up for the cause of new community school without any knowledge of the quality of their local education authority. Parents have a better gut instinct of the quality of what is going on locally than the hon. Gentleman perhaps gives them credit for.

Jacqui Smith: We have had a short but good discussion on this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton ably spelt out the intentions behind clause 9, so I will not go over that again.
Amendment No. 29 would prevent a local authority from proposing to establish any new schools outside a competition. As we discussed in relation to clause 7, we have introduced competitions to create and promote diversity and choice within the education system, and in particular to provide an environment within which new promoters will be able to propose the establishment of new schools. However, there are circumstances—exceptional circumstances; the hon. Gentleman is right about that—in which a competition might not be appropriate. In effect, clause 7 is the default position for proposals for new and reorganised schools, but clause 9 provides some flexibility to allow a local authority or promoter to propose the establishment of a new school without the need for a competition.
Hon. Members have asked me to outline some of the limited circumstances in which that might be appropriate. If a school was failing, the local partners, in concert with expert advisers, might decide that the best way forward would be a collaborative restart of the school with a particular character and ethos; that would need to happen quickly and there would have to be a consensus on how to deal with that example of failure. As for primary schools, a junior and an infant school sharing a single site might want to amalgamate to form an all-through primary; we do not think that a competition would necessarily make sense in those circumstances. I shall give other examples when I discuss some of the other amendments.
Of course, in deciding whether to consent to proposals outside a competition, the Secretary of State will take into account the local authority’s track record on educational performance, the existing degree of diversity in the school system and parental preference and the views expressed by parents in the area. Also, any proposals by the local authority, whether for a foundation school or a new community school, would be decided in such circumstances by the schools adjudicator. There would be another stage to complete following the Secretary of State’s consent to the publication of proposals outside a competition: that stage would consist of consultation, the publication of proposals and the making of a decision, similar to the process that have already discussed.
In those circumstances it is appropriate for the schools adjudicator to be the decision maker, because it is important to avoid any question of the authority’s being judge and jury in its own case. If the Secretary of State agrees, however, we think it right that a local authority should be able to publish proposals for a new community or foundation school. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise the sense of that in certain circumstances, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 67 would enable local authorities to make proposals outside competitions without the consent of the Secretary of State. As we have heard, the arguments are very similar to those that we rehearsed at length under clause 7 about allowing proposals for new community schools to be made within competitions without the consent of the Secretary of State.
To reiterate some of the points that I made then, the argument is not about centralisation or localisation, but about the direction in which we want to move the local authority’s role and the nature of the dynamic that we want to create in the school system. We are not opposed to local education authorities. We are strengthening their role as the champions of parents and in assuring the quality of provision in an area. However, that is a modernised role as commissioners of services, rather than as direct providers.
As I suggested earlier, it is important that we do not, as the amendment would, allow local authorities to sidetrack competitions. We made it clear in the White Paper that we think that competitions will normally be the best way to encourage diversity in the system. If the system is to be open to new ideas and to innovation by new providers, potential providers should have the necessary information about opportunities for new schools and should be encouraged to make proposals for local people to consider. That is how we are most likely to get a diverse range of schools, which will increase not only the choice for parents and pupils, but the chance that schools will learn from each other. Clause 9, like clause 7, represents the right balance between encouraging a diverse and dynamic system and allowing proposals outside a competition when that makes sense.
Amendment No. 28 would remove the ability of a local authority to propose a community school outside a competition. We had a lengthy discussion last week about what we said in the White Paper and the fact that we considered that there might be circumstances in which it would make sense for a local authority to promote a community school either under the clause 7 arrangements or, in certain circumstances, outside a competition.
In circumstances in which the Secretary of State agrees that a community school might be the right option, a local authority should be able to publish proposals for that community school or a community special school. As I have said, the normal route would be to hold a competition under clause 7 and the local authority would propose a new community school as part of that competition. The decision will be made according to criteria that, as I have said, wewill produce on Report. However, in exceptional circumstances, a local authority should be able to make the case for proposing a community school without a competition. I gave the example of the collaborative restart idea in the case of failure. It seems to be appropriate for that option to be available, with the consent of the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 77 would limit the Secretary of State’s power to agree to allow a local authority to publish proposals for a new community school outside a competition unless the authority can provide evidence that the establishment of such a school would lead to better results. Without going over old ground, I have made it clear that we think that the circumstances in which we agree to a school being established without competition will be limited. I have already given the example of a failing school that is to be replaced by an agreed collaborative restart.
Another example, which would not directly meet the criteria outlined by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton but which I think he might think would be appropriate, would be if denominational schools in an area were being reorganised and it was proposed that the replacement school or schools be of the same denomination. In such a case, we would not be talking directly about a standards test. However,if, say, two Roman Catholic schools were being reorganised because of falling rolls, it would be appropriate to propose one Roman Catholic school to replace them. That would seem to be an appropriate circumstance in which to make a proposal outside a competition.
It was our intention in the White Paper to say that new community schools should not be able to be established in any circumstances, but we listened to representations from hon. Members, local authorities and others, and agreed that there are circumstances in which a community school might be the right option. Also, as I have suggested, it might be appropriate to allow proposals outside a competition even in circumstances in which there is not, as the amendment suggests, a clear standards case. It is important to allow freedom to consider all the factors in each case—the process should not be purely mechanistic.
The amendment is narrow and could lead to arguments and counter-arguments about the respective merits of different categories of schools, whereas what we want is the best school for each area—one that meets the specific needs of local parents and of the community. Of course, as I said, even if the Secretary of State agrees that proposals can be published, the final decision will be for the schools adjudicator, who will naturally consider the impact on local standards and circumstances. If the proposals do not provide hard evidence that a school will make a positive contribution to local standards, to community needs, and to parental choice, I expect that the proposals would be rejected. Consideration of standards is therefore included in the process for publication of proposals, so I hope that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton agrees that there may well be circumstances that would not fit into his proposals. Our priority is to secure high standards, but we also need to be free to judge each case on its own merits.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, we had a similar discussion on the role of parents in relation to clause 7 as we have had on amendmentNo. 181, so I shall not rehearse the arguments in detail, because our position is well known. We strongly support the role of parents and we have made specific provision in the Bill to strengthen it. My hon. Friend is right to argue that that role should be developed in a systematic way that recognises the variety of different ways in which parents may make representations or express concerns. That is why, when we discussed clauses 2 and 3,which place new duties on local authorities to promote diversity and parental choice and to respond to specific representations from parents, we discussed the ways in which we would expect local authorities to respond and examined in detail the guidance published alongside those clauses—guidance that explained the action that we expect from local authorities.
If parents wanted a community or a foundation school that was being proposed by the authority, that would add weight to the arguments in favour, but it would not be the only or the decisive factor. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured about how seriously we take the need to consider parents’ requirements and by our recognition of the complexity involved in doing so. I hope that he will be willing not to press his amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive explanation of her resistance to the amendments. She cited a suitably narrow range of examples of when the provisions of clause 9 would be needed by a local authority to establish a school outside of the competition arrangements of clause 7. That confirmed my understanding of the clause, that it is only to be used by local authorities in exceptional circumstances. She convinced me that the wording of amendment No. 29 may be unnecessarily wide, in that it would remove any possibility of a local authority establishing a school outside of the competition arrangements. The examples that she cited of when a local authority may wish to do that were valid.
However, I was unconvinced by her justification for not removing the ability of local authorities to establish a community school outside the competition arrangements. As with clause 7, I believe that that provision was inserted into clause 9 as a concession to Labour party rebels. Therefore, although I shall withdraw amendment No. 29, I shall move amendment No. 28 formally at the appropriate point.

Sarah Teather: The Minister argues that that the presence of the Secretary of State’s veto in the clause and elsewhere is not about centralisation, but that is precisely what it is about and I do not understand how she can conclude otherwise. The definition of centralisation is taking power away from local authorities and putting it in the hands of the Secretary of State. We can come to no other conclusion. It is like arguing that the world is flat when we know it is round, or that the sun is shining when it is raining. It is no good arguing that something is the case when it blatantly is not. The right hon. Lady is right to say that the clause is about the role of local authorities and what we consider it to be. We believe that their role should be to make decisions about their local area.
The clause allows the Secretary of State to sidetrack competition. If that is not what the right hon. Lady wanted, the clause should have been drafted differently. Our amendment provides that in the special circumstances when we do not want the competition rules to apply, the decision-making body would be the local authority, not the Secretary of State. That is a point of principle and we shall divide the Committee on amendment No. 67.

David Chaytor: I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I will not press my amendment.

Nick Gibb: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 67, in clause 9, page 7, line 34, leave out
‘with the consent of the Secretary of State'—[Sarah Teather.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 18.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 28, in clause 9, page 7, leave out line 37.—[Mr. Gibb.]

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 16.

Question accordingly negatived.

Sarah Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 9, page 7, line 43, after ‘7)', insert ‘an academy,'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 153, in clause 9, page 7, line 41, leave out ‘Secretary of State' and insert ‘local education authority'.

Sarah Teather: The reason for tabling the amendment is based on arguments similar to those that I advanced earlier and in a previous sitting: even in the special circumstances in which an external body may come forward to publish proposals outside the remit of a competition, the body whose agreement must be sought should be the local authority, not the Secretary of State. The local authority is best placed to decide about the circumstances in an area, what criteria should be used to set up a school, and what kind of school it should be. The local authority should take that strategic role, as the Minister argued elsewhere.

John Hayes: Before I speak to amendment No. 30, I welcome you again to the Chair, Mr. Cook, as ever. Indeed, why not do so on a regular basis?
As the hon. Member for Brent, East rightly said, the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats reprises the argument that has run throughout the Committee between the different parties about the nature of the role of LEAs and the balance between that and the role of local communities and the Secretary of State.
Different views on the matter have emerged and I want to make it clear that we perceive a role for LEAs in education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said at our last sitting. Had we not believed that, we could not reasonably have supported the Bill, because it perceives an ongoing role for LEAs. However, the Bill makes important changes to that role, and the hon. Lady’s amendment and her comments on it reflect earlier comments that show a difference between the Liberal Democrats’ perspective on the subject and that of the Opposition and the Government. Our views on education are not identical to those of the Government, but we are close to their position on the corresponding roles of LEAs and the Secretary of State because we appreciate that although local government is more than an agency of central Government, it is the creation of Parliament.
We do not have a federal system; we have a unitary constitution in which the power of local government is defined both by its legitimacy drawn from the people whom it represents and by the statutory powers vested in it by Parliament. The nature of central and local relations reflects that; there is always a balance to be struck between the proper considerations of Government—and, in this case, the educational considerations of the Secretary of State, who has a responsibility to ensure that schools are established properly and that they are fit for purpose—and the role of local authorities in determining the provision in their locale. Thus, I have doubts about the Liberal Democrats’ amendment.
Amendment No. 30 would insert the words “an academy” into the clause. The omission of the phrase is surprising, given that the White Paper states that the Government will
“continue to promote Academies as a key part of our system...tackling the acute challenges in areas of real and historical underperformance”.
We had a short debate about academies last week and the Minister waxed lyrical about their virtues. Of course it is true that the performance of academies has been patchy. Some have done well and some less well, but it would be wrong to exclude academies from this part of the Bill, as though they were no longer the pivotal element of the policy the Minister reaffirmed a few days ago in Committee.
Our amendment is consistent with the Government’s intention and our perspective. We do not, of course, make a blind judgment that all academies are working as well as they might, but we are anxious to give them a fair wind and to support the good work that is being done. They are founded on a proper consideration of the need to engage in educational renewal in areas of disadvantage. That deserves support—and, by the way, we should not let the other current debate, about the way they are resourced, colour our views on the relevant aspect of the Bill.
I resist the overtures that are being made once again by the Liberal Democrats to frustrate the intention of the Bill, by undermining the balance that I have described. It should not be for local authorities to grant consent for proposals to establish new schools. The best local authorities work for the people they serve, rather than dictating what is to be provided. The White Paper states:
“The best local authorities are strategic leaders of their communities, listening to, and then speaking for their citizens, demanding the very best for those who elected them and building cultural and civic identity. They work with neighbourhoods and local communities to help them articulate their needs, and ensure that the pattern of local services matches up to their vision and aspirations. They act as the commissioners of services and the champions of users.”
That is not a role to be underestimated. It is notan understatement of the significance of local government, but a reaffirmation of our belief in local government of a kind that can deliver the best by understanding when it should step forward and when it should step back so that others can step forward.

Jacqui Smith: With these amendments we are considering the circumstances set out in clause 9 in which promoters other than local authorities can make proposals for schools outside the competition provisions. In discussing the previous group of amendments we focused, on the whole, on the circumstances in which local authorities could make proposals outside those provisions. In that context, the impact of amendment No. 153 would be to enable local authorities to decide whether proposers other than local authorities could make proposals for new schools.
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, East, that our proposals would ensure that the Government could take powers to control the publication of proposals outside competitions. As I have said, that is precisely to ensure that competitions will be effective and will remain the default mechanism for presenting new proposals. I do not think that the hon. Lady’s motive in tabling the amendment is to help to promote competitions and diversity in the system.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister comment on the duty on a local authority, which arose in an earlier clause, to provide diversity and choice? Does not that set a framework in which local decision making can take place?

Jacqui Smith: It certainly does, and I hope and expect that local authorities will take that duty seriously. However, it is also appropriate for us to reinforce the structure that was put in place by the 2005 Act—that is effectively what the provisions do—to ensure, through competition proposals, that there is a process and a statutory framework that enables new providers to come forward.
Groups other than local authorities have always been able to make proposals for new schools; the large number of voluntary schools bears witness to that. Such providers have made a valuable contribution to education and will continue to do so. That is why we are introducing the trust school model and encouraging foundation schools of all kinds.
As we have made clear, we support competitions because they will encourage openness to innovation. A range of providers will be able to consider how they might make a contribution to education, and that will potentially increase the number of proposers. The danger in amendment No. 153 is that if proposals could be made without the consent of the Secretary of State, a local authority could avoid a competition by entering into a private arrangement to support the proposals of a particular provider, denying others the opportunity to have their proposals considered. That would not be in line with the intention behind the proposed programme: to open up and diversify the education system and give new providers opportunities to make a contribution. On that basis, we oppose amendment No. 153.

Robert Wilson: As I understand it, no competitions to find alternative providers have been held by local authorities since the 2002 Act. What does the Minister think will change after this Bill to encourage new providers to come forward and local authorities to hold competitions?

Jacqui Smith: As I have outlined, the competition proposals in the 2002 Act related only to completely new schools. In the Education Act 2005 we broadened those provisions to include reorganised schools, to widen opportunities. As I said to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton last week, those are the provisions on which we are consulting. Such a broadening of competition proposals will provide the opportunity for more new providers to come forward.
I hope that I can provide reassurance to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings(Mr. Hayes) on the point that he made on amendment No. 30 about the position of academies. Clause 9 will replace section 28A of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which was inserted by section 65 of the 2005 Act. I know that the hon. Gentleman is intimately aware of those sections. Members of the Committee will have noticed when we discussed clause 7 that academies are included in that clause, which will replace section 66 of the 2005 Act. That will ensure that where a local authority holds a competition for a new school, the possibility of opening an academy is not overlooked.
As we have discussed, clause 9 deals with cases in which the Secretary of State gives consent for proposals to go ahead without a competition. We do not need specifically to include academies in the clause because there is already a clear legal process for establishing a new academy without a competition, under section 482 of the Education Act 1996, as inserted by the 2002 Act. The amendment would therefore not add to the power to propose new academies.
Of course I welcome the suggestion that the success of academies means that we should promote the establishment of more of them, but we do not need the amendment to do so. The legal process already in place includes clear requirements for the establishment of academies and for appropriate checks on the probity of potential sponsors. It spells out a solid basis for setting up academies and allowing them to improve pupils’ educational opportunities, and ensures that the route outlined by the hon. Gentleman exists outwith the competition proposals in clause 7. I hope that with that reassurance he will not press amendment No. 30.

Sarah Teather: As outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), the duties at the start of the Bill already place a duty on local authorities to increase diversity of provision. Presumably, when the Government drafted the clause, they expected local authorities to implement it. So I cannot see what the Government have to lose by leaving them to get on with it.
If the Minister is implying that I have an ulterior motive for tabling this or any other amendment, she misunderstands how seriously the Liberal Democrats take local decision making. That runs throughout all of our philosophy—we take it very seriously. We believe that the local authority should make the decisions about service provision in its area, regardless of how special the circumstances—end of story.
We could probably have an interesting debate about the historical nature of government, and where it began, with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. I suspect that in the feudal system, power began at a much lower level than central Parliament. Perhaps we could debate that and come to a decision on another occasion—it is probably not appropriate in our deliberations on the Bill before us. Regardless of historical understanding, localism should not be about a benign gift of power, from the centre to the local authorities, when the centre so chooses.

Nadine Dorries: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sarah Teather: No, I am about to finish.
We believe that the process should be bottom-up, not centre-down. With that in mind, I shall press amendment No. 153 to a vote.

John Hayes: Amendment No. 30 was a probing amendment, and the Minister has satisfied me that her attachment to, and enthusiasm for, academies is undimmed. She reminded me of the 1996 Act, amended by the 2002 Act, which in respect of academies effectively does what we want to do. That renders our amendment unnecessary and ensures that the process of setting up academies is not adversely affected by the provisions in the Bill.
I am satisfied with the response to my amendment, but I am not persuaded by the hon. Member for Brent, East and the case that she made for her amendment. If she chooses to press her amendment, I will advise my colleagues to oppose her. For my own part, I shall not press amendment No. 30.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 19.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Publication of proposals to establish maintained schools: special cases

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in clause 10, page 9, line 2, leave out ‘2002' and insert ‘1996'.
The amendment is purely a technical one to correct an error in the drafting of clause 10, for which I apologise to the Committee. Subsection (4) states that approval of non-maintained special schools is given under the Education Act 2002. That is not the case. Non-maintained special schools are approved under section 342 of the Education Act 1996, and the amendment corrects the date. Subsection (4) makes provision for circumstances in which a new foundation special school is to be regarded as replacing a non-maintained special school comparable to that in subsection (3) for independent schools. I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendment is helpful in clarifying and tidying up the drafting, and willsupport it.

Amendment agreed to.

Sarah Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 350, in clause 10, page 9, line 16, at end insert—
‘(6A) Where the proposals relate to a new foundation, voluntary or foundation special school providing education suitable only to the requirements of persons above compulsory age, the persons to be consulted under subsection (6) must include all colleges of further education providing education for 16-19 year olds in the relevant area.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 351, in clause 10, page 9, line 23, at end insert—
‘(10) In determining any proposal under this section the authority or proposers (as the case may be) must have regard to the impact of any proposed new school on existing provision in schools or colleges of further education.'.
No. 352, in clause 19, page 14, line 28, at end add—
‘(7) The regulations must require any local education authority publishing proposals on the establishment of educational provision suitable to the requirements of pupils over compulsory school age to consult all colleges of further education providing education for 16-19 year olds in the relevant area.
(8) In assessing a proposal under this section the authority or adjudicator must take account of the impact of the proposal on existing provision.'.

Sarah Teather: The amendments are probing amendments to test out who should be consulted and the weight that should be given to their views. Amendment No. 350 seeks to provide that colleges of further education should be consulted by a local education authority when it seeks to establish any new educational institution catering for post-16 education. Amendment No. 251 would go further, requiring the LEA to consider the impact on FE colleges of any new school opening in an area.
Colleges are the largest provider of 16-to-19 provision. Almost twice as many students go to FE colleges as attend school sixth forms. They are also much more likely to provide for the most disadvantaged students. It is notable that 15 per cent. of learners in colleges are from ethnic minorities, compared with 8 per cent. of the general population. Indeed, 64 per cent. of those in receipt of educational maintenance allowances study in FE or other colleges.
FE colleges have a high customer satisfaction rate. They offer high-quality courses in a wide range of subjects. According to a survey by the Association of Colleges, 84 per cent. of the British public believe that their local college is as important to business as any other factor. The Bill’s proposal to allow local authorities to propose new sixth-form schools seems to contradict the FE White Paper, which contains a presumption that there should be sixth-form colleges rather than sixth-form schools. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how that apparent contradiction will be resolved.
The Bill provides for local authorities to propose new sixth-form schools, but not to fund them—that would be for the Learning and Skills Council to do—and it says that the learning and skills council for an area should be consulted about the setting up of new sixth-form schools. However, colleges feel that that body is not best placed to act on their behalf. I suspect that there are many reasons for that, but colleges are independent bodies, not subsidiaries of the learning and skills council.
Colleges are concerned that smaller sixth-form schools tend to have inferior results, quality of teaching and choice of subject and that, as theright hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich(Mr. Raynsford) pointed out on Second Reading, they are more expensive because of the funding gap between themselves and FE colleges.
We are not opposed to the setting up of new sixth-form schools; they might be the best and safest environment for some young people. In that case, it is important that any new sixth-form school be set up in collaboration with others in an area to ensure that choice and quality are not affected. Often, small schools are unable to provide as much choice as might be required.

David Chaytor: Does the hon. Lady not accept that there is a direct relationship between achievement and the points score at A-level and the size of the sixth form? The smallest sixth forms have the lowest achievement in terms of A-level point score; the largest have the highest. Each band of size of sixth form increases progressively towards the higher end of the achievement level.

Sarah Teather: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was about to make; that is very much the case. That is why colleges are very concerned about a presumption in the Bill towards setting up smaller sixth forms, which are more expensive to provide and which may yield lower-quality results. If there are occasions when sixth form schools should be set up because it is appropriate for the locality, it must be done in collaboration with others to ensure that all those opportunities for quality, choice and teaching are provided for.

John Hayes: The case made by the hon. Lady in support of her amendment is one that I want to explore. This is an important aspect of the Bill that thus far we have not had a chance to discuss, but which the amendment focuses on rather clearly. The lead amendment has some merit. It would include
“all colleges of further education providing education for16-19 year olds in the relevant area”
in the consultation process under subsection (6). The other amendments follow in similar vein. I understand the hon. Lady’s proper attention to the necessary relationship between schools and FE institutions in the locality and her consequent desire to involve FE in the consultation process. However, she has illuminated yet another difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals.
It was Harold Macmillan who said:
“As usual the Liberals offer a mixture of sound and original ideas. Unfortunately none of the sound ideas is original and none of the original ideas is sound.”
That is perhaps an overstatement of their virtues. It was very true today.

Sarah Teather: Get on with it!

John Hayes: I never know whether the hon. Lady is more churlish than childish or more childish than churlish. She is certainly both. Nevertheless, shemade an important point about whether we see FE’s continuing role as duplicating the role that is performed in sixth form colleges and schools or whether, like Sir Andrew Foster, we believe that one of the problems that faces FE is the fact that because it does a large number of things, its purpose is insufficiently defined.
Sir Andrew Foster described in his report last year how FE’s identity is blurred by the fact that it is seen as doing different things by different people. He stated that teachers and learners in FE often have a blurred sense of the college’s purpose and that there may be some displacement of resource and attention because FE lacks focus.
There is a case to be made for FE focusing much more heavily on vocational skills and on upskilling and re-skilling the work force. There is a parallel but equally powerful case for FE picking up the whole “Skills for Life” agenda, in the way the Government elucidated after the Budget, in the new entitlements for people up to the age of 25, and doing less work that could be as usefully done elsewhere. I do not make a definitive judgment on that because I do not have a definitive view on it, but it certainly needs to be explored. It has direct relevance to this part of the Bill.

Annette Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman explain his vision of what students might study if they are based at a school? Would that include only A-levels at school, and vocational studies at college? Does he not see that a particular student, based primarily at one institution, might study for a range of diplomas being developed by the Government?

John Hayes: That is precisely the argument that we have been having about the breadth of opportunity available to young people, post-14 and post-16, and the need not only to review the curriculum, which is what the Government have done through the diplomas, but—in my judgment—to look more closely at the relationship between schools and FE institutions.
I have no prejudices about the idea of schools and FE institutions jointly designing, managing and even funding courses so that skills can be shared. Schools have a problem of providing sufficient resources and skills in order to offer the breadth of provision within their own compass that students might demand. Even schools, such as Gleed girls school in my constituency, that have gained vocational specialism have that problem. To do that, they need either to collaborate with other schools or to have a much closer working relationship with other institutions, such as colleges.

Frank Cook: Order. I remind the Committee of two things: first, the Chair is located at this end of the Room, and, secondly, comments are meant to be directed towards it.

John Hayes: I am sorry, Mr. Cook. I shall follow your advice with my usual diligence.
We learn from the comments of the hon. Member for Brent, East that the purpose of the amendment is to discourage or inhibit the expansion of schools offering sixth-form provision because she discerns that that might be unhelpful to FE. As I said, my case is not prejudiced, but hypothetical. One might say that there is a direct counter-argument that it might be rather helpful to FE to refocus its energies away from what could be done through collaborative arrangements, but essentially around school education.
As I said, that is not a prejudiced or partisan matter, but it is one that needs to be debated in the context of the Bill and the amendments. If the hon. Lady’s vision, in which FE would continue much as it is now, is to be realised, we would be ignoring Sir Andrew Foster’s conclusions. I suspect that my view and that of the Minister are more similar to each other than either is to that of the Liberal Democrats.

Annette Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman reiterate that he thinks that there is the possibility of collaboration so that an individual pupil might study academic and vocational subjects—in other words, a mix, which is the direction in which we are moving 14-to-19 provision? Does he not think therefore that FE institutions need to be consulted to see where they would fit into that collaboration?

John Hayes: Yes, I think that that is one of the purposes of the provision, which is why I talkedabout collaboration, jointly designed, managed and implemented courses, and the possibility of joint institutions. For example, I have a school in my constituency—I shall not go into too much detail—that is hoping to develop a centre working with other schools to take advantage of the vocational specialism that it has acquired and to deliver precisely the range of products described by the hon. Lady.
Of course I am in favour of FE institutions and schools working together more closely so that they can offer the mix of which the hon. Lady is in favour. However, I am not sure that that kind of collaborative model can be squared with the view that began to emerge from those on the Liberal Front Bench—I accept that it was only a short speech on a particular amendment—which seemed to be rather hostile to the idea of encouraging school sixth forms and that model.
Unless we are prepared to rethink more radically how we provide post-16 education, both academic and vocational, we will not overcome the problems identified by Sir Andrew Foster, to which I draw the Committee’s attention. He argued that FE
“lacks a clearly recognised and shared core purpose.”
I think that he is right. FE colleges should develop specialisms in which they can excel. That happens increasingly in schools and has long happened in higher education. Of course higher education institutions provide a range of courses, but we all know that some have specialisms in which they have particular expertise and focus, and for which they have a reputation. Why should not that situation be reflected in colleges?

Phil Hope: I was not going to speak in this debate, but I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as he is quoting Sir Andrew Foster so favourably, he supports the Government’s White Paper, “Raising Skills and Improving Life Chances,” which implements 74 of the 80 Foster recommendations. We are implementing the other six in a different way. He cannot quote Foster only in support of FE colleges, but he can support the White Paper.

John Hayes: Yes, the Government have got some of this right. I would be the first to acknowledge that the Under-Secretary’s personal commitment to the matter is undoubted. I know that he has given considerable attention to the Foster report, but the Government start from a difficult position on skills, because we have a skills crisis. No Government want to admit that, but it is clear from the interim Leach report—we expect the final report this summer to say nothing different—that the task is immense.
One of the dilemmas at the heart of the matter is the fact that the Government’s core skills entitlement for those up to the age of 25 might well further skew the resources and attention of FE away from upskilling and re-skilling the existing work force towards a second chance for those up to 25. I put that point to the Under-Secretary as he has challenged me on the matter.
One understands entirely why the Government want to give the entitlement, and I do not wish to question their intention or ignore the necessity of dealing with core skills, which are vital to the life chances of individuals and to national competitiveness. However, I worry about the impact that the policy might have on FE, which is already telling us that the Skills for Life campaign concentrates resources in a way that makes it even harder to get at the hardest to get at groups—older people, more disadvantaged people, existing workers or people outside the work force. That is my judgment, and that of some FE principals to whom I have spoken. I raise that caveat to my general words of praise of the Government and the Under-Secretary.
As I have said, we should be even more creative and imaginative in reconstructing the provision of skills training. We must be radical in breaking down the barriers between schools, colleges and employers, and we must look more closely at how courses are designed and how to implement vocational education. We must think much more laterally about such matters.
In meeting the parity of esteem challenge, we can borrow from accreditation practice in industry. We can draw on the best talents available in each sector and not be hidebound by the conventional structural barriers that can lead us to replicate and contradict some of what is done in vocational education.
I am not ignoring the points that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole made about the need to consult FE and the important debate to be had about the role of school sixth forms and sixth-form colleges. I do not intend just to be adversarial, but I am just not sure that I agree with her about what FE colleges should be doing.
The hon. Lady makes an important point in that my argument is most applicable in places where it iseasy in practice to access the kind of mixed provision through collaboration that she advocates. That kind of provision is probably more straightforward to access if one lives in a conurbation or other area in which it is easier to get about than it might be in a rural area in which travel distances and the simple act of getting to the places where learning and resources are located make things more difficult. In rural areas, it is harder to construct a model around what I said in relation to Sir Andrew Foster. There, travel issues are a profound problem, particularly for younger learners. We shall say more about that when we consider transportation in the later parts of the Bill. The viability of post-16 provision because of numbers in sparsely populated areas—another matter that relates to the hon. Lady’s comments—also needs to be factored into our considerations, but perhaps that is a debate for another time.
It is right that we take full account of the important role of colleges, and that we understand the significance of vocational education in the mix of education that is to be provided, and which is affected by the Bill. It is right, too, that we make a judgment about how and from where we want that educationto be provided. However, I am not instinctively sympathetic to the amendments and nothing that I have heard has made me more so, but I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response to them.

Frank Cook: Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if I were to register the fact that I am not a mind reader. Anybody who wants to catch my eye ought to stand erect. Greg Mulholland.

Greg Mulholland: Thank you, Mr. Cook. I hope that that was erect enough.
I hope that the Minister will agree that this is an important point, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings acknowledged that it is important to have the discussion. The Liberal Democrats agree that we need to focus on post-16 education and to improve what is on offer. That is why we have been consistently supportive of the Tomlinson agenda. I was a little concerned about the way in which the comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings came across. He appeared not to acknowledge or even value the contribution of the FE sector and colleges to post-16 education. We are very aware of that on these Benches, and support it and I hope that the Government will echo my comments. Indeed, a recent Government survey of 27,000 businesses showed that 95 per cent. of employers approved of the trainingthat they receive from colleges. Together with the facts that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East set out, and despite the 10 per cent. funding gap that still exists between FE colleges and school sixth forms and the fact that there is no timetable or plan as to how that will be changed—

Meg Hillier: It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments about support for vocational education. How does he square that with his party’s opposition to a Bill that proposes 14 post-14 vocational diplomas?

Greg Mulholland: As the hon. Lady well knows, that is not why we opposed that Bill. The point is collaboration. The word has been used in the Committee, but we are still not convinced that the necessary collaboration is occurring at local level to analyse the effect of the Bill on local education as a whole. It is precisely because of the need to improve post-16 education—a need that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings touched upon—that we support the extension to vocational education that the Government have proposed. The point of our amendment, however, is that post-16 education will be threatened unless its planning and implementation is examined as a whole at local level, along with the effects on different institutions.
All members of the Committee would agree that parents want good local education from the ages of five to 18 and 19. My party is certain that in proposing a new school, subject to the Secretary of State’s veto, local authorities will continue to work with the local FE sector, but I ask the Minister to assure us that that will be the case. The amendment acknowledges and reinforces the commitment of local authorities to the strategic planning of education, because we believe that that has been abandoned by both the Government and the Opposition.

John Hayes: Just to be clear, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right: there is an immense amount of good work being done in FE colleges both by managers and teachers, and in no way do I underestimate that. My point was that we expect too much of FE. If we are not clear about what we want from FE it is a bit rich when we complain about what it provides. It does a good job and we need to give more strategic direction, of the kind that the hon. Gentleman described, about what we want from the sector. We need local agreement and national clarity of purpose.

Greg Mulholland: I am pleased to hear that acknowledgment, and I challenge the Minister to show that the Government have the same commitment. From their policy, it does not appear to our party that they have the interests of colleges uppermost. In general, we are not convinced that there is sufficient acknowledgment of the effect of decisions about new schools and new sixth forms on local provision in other schools. I ask the Minister to comment both from an FE perspective and generally, because the issue isthe Bill’s direction of travel—the atomisation of education, as Neil Kinnock put it, which my party wants to avoid.

Jacqui Smith: Onlookers to this debate might have thought that clause 10, or even the amendments, were about the future of education for 14 to 19-year-olds, or the collaborative role of FE colleges, but they are not—although those are important issues that we shall have ample opportunity to discuss when we reach clauses 61 and 62 and clause 149, which makes new provision for schools and FE colleges to be able to collaborate. I shall therefore focus my comments on the clause and the amendments.
The clause relates to special cases that are outside the competition provisions of clause 7 and the provisions of clause 9 whereby proposals may be made for new schools. One category of such proposals indeed relates to schools for 16 to 19-year-olds. However, the provision largely replicates an existing one and allows local authorities and others to publish proposals for foundation or voluntary schools that cater only for pupils above compulsory school age.
Although the proposals would be brought forward outside competition—the context is that therewould usually be a competition arranged by the Learning and Skills Council for significant new 16-to-19 provision—it would be non-statutory as opposed to the statutory competition process that we discussed in clause 7. It would be followed by the publication of proposals in the usual way. Capital funding for 16-to-19 provision is provided through the 16-to-19 capital fund, which is also administered by the Learning and Skills Council.
As the hon. Member for Brent, East made clear, the impetus for the amendments to the consultation provisions in the clause is that FE institutions should be consulted before new 16-to-19 schools or new sixth forms are proposed, and that in deciding proposals for new 16-to-19 provision, their effect on the existing provision should be taken into account.
I have no problem with those requirements. We agree that all those with an interest in proposals for new provisions should be consulted and that decision makers need to consider the effect of proposals on existing provision. Decision makers would not be doing their job properly if they did not consider all the relevant factors.
There is a technical problem with the amendments in that it is not necessary to put the requirements in the Bill. These matters are usually handled as they are in the clause as drafted, with a requirement to consult such persons as appear appropriate, having regard to statutory guidance from the Secretary of State.
At present, statutory guidance specifies that among those who must be consulted are other local authorities and other schools who may be affected by the proposals, parents and teachers in the area, local dioceses or national faith groups, the Learning and Skills Council and any other interested party, for example the early years development and child care partnership when the proposals affect early years provision.
I accept the hon. Lady’s argument that FE colleges in the area would have an interest and would therefore need to be consulted. To put that beyond dispute, I am happy to give the Committee an assurance that statutory guidance on consultation for new schools and additions to existing schools under the Bill will specifically include FE colleges in the area as well as schools and the Learning and Skills Council. I hope the hon. Lady finds that assurance satisfactory.
Similar considerations apply to statutory guidance to decision makers on the factors that they will need to take into account in deciding proposals for new schools or additional provision at existing schools. Paragraph 8(6) of schedule 2 states that when deciding whether to give approval to proposals for new schools
“the local education authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.”
Paragraph 17(1)(b) applies that provision to the adjudicator.
In respect of new provision at existing schools, clause 19(6) provides that regulations may require decision makers to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State. Existing guidance specifically states that in deciding proposals for new schools and new sixth forms, the decision maker must take into account the views of other schools and colleges in the area, as well as the views of the Learning and Skills Council.
I am happy to assure members of the Committee that new guidance under the Bill will carry these provisions forward and that the views of FE colleges in the area will be taken into account by those deciding on proposals. I hope that hon. Members will consider my proposals sufficient to meet their concerns and will agree not to press their amendments to a Division.

Sarah Teather: I want to thank the Minister for her tremendously helpful clarification and for putting those points on the record. We are extremely grateful to her for dealing with our amendments in the spirit in which they were tabled, in contrast to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who made another very long speech setting up a straw man to knock down, trying to find divisions between the parties when in truth we are pretty much in agreement on pretty much the same things. I thank the Minister for saying, on the record, what will be in the statutory guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Establishment of school as federated school

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb: I want to say a few words about the issue of federated schools. The purpose of the clause appears to be to enable the provisions on federated schools in the Education Act 2002 to apply to theBill’s provisions on the establishment of new schools. Clause 11(2) states that the phrase
“ ‘federated school’ has the meaning given by section 24(2)”
of the 2002 Act. I looked up that section, which states: 
“In this Chapter ‘federation’ means a group of schools that are federated by virtue of this section, and "federated school" means a school forming part of a federation.”
So that is clear, then.
Section 24 deals with two or more schools being able to form a federation, with a single governing body, which in prescribed cases can be treated as a single school. That type of federation is, I presume, of the type referred to as a hard federation, whereas in a soft federation the head of a successful school would take on the additional headship of a local school that was failing or coasting, but would not formally merge the two governing bodies.
Will the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding the creation of a federation of schools of the hard kind, the exam results of the individual schools within the federation would continue to be published separately? Will she also confirm that parents applying for their children to attend a school in the federation would be able to specify the one that they wanted their children to attend, and would not be forced to apply just to the federation?
Does the Minister envisage any maximum size for a federation? I recently met an LEA officer who presented me with an apocalyptic vision of what a future federation could look like. She said that there could be a federation of 20 schools; that parents could have to apply to the federation rather than to an individual school; that the federation could allocate children to one of its schools as it saw fit; and that the exam results of the schools could be consolidated into a block for the federation as a whole.
That would in effect create a mini-education authority, within which parents would have no choice of school and exam results would no longer be published. That would take us back to the regime of the 1970s and early 1980s. I hope that the Minister will confirm that such a use of the federated schools provisions in clause 11 and in section 24 of the 2002 Act will not be permitted.

Annette Brooke: I would like to make somebrief comments because the Liberal Democrats support the general principle of federation. It fitswith our alternative vision—alternative to that of the Government and the Conservatives, that is—of a collaborative model. I have some questions about exactly what is envisaged under the clause. Like the hon. Gentleman I find that that is not entirely clear when one refers to the 2002 Act, and we join in the request for clarity.
I am interested also in the fact that federation could be horizontal, vertical or a mixture, and would like the Minister to comment on that. I can see that in some areas a vertical federation would provide advantages such as continuity and economies of scale in purchasing, among other things; interesting ideas also emerge from what would effectively be the twinning of schools, when a school with a particular strength could support another that might be weaker in that area, and vice versa. We support the principles, but would like more detail.

Anne Snelgrove: I want to raise briefly some points that have arisen from correspondence that I have had with Wiltshire education authority on federated schools. I support the concept; it offers opportunities to solve the problems that will occur when school rolls fall and we have to consider closures. In particular, Wiltshire has had difficulties with small rural schools, which it has raised with me. A number of the children in my constituency go across the border to Wiltshire schools, and I want to raise the matter on their behalf.
Federations enable small rural schools to remain open, and Wiltshire has enthusiastically pursued the concept in order to keep rural communities going. However, it believes that this clause and clause 7 might prevent it from continuing to do so. I should appreciate an opportunity to discuss the matter further with the Minister in private in order to ensure that Wiltshire is afforded every opportunity to carry on federating as it is doing. The Bill should not prevent authorities from finding creative solutions to federating schools so that they may remain open. I am sure that all hon. Members would regret it if that were to happen.
The difficulty is that when schools federate as some have done, the Department for Education and Skills says that they have to announce a school’s closure. That is putting some schools and governing bodies off federating, and might lead—in some cases, has led—to the closure of small rural schools, which have been unable to remain open without federation. I shall be very interested in the Minister’s comments. My summary might not be exactly correct, but I think that I have the gist: Wiltshire and other rural LEAs should be able to federate in order to keep their schools open.

Jacqui Smith: The clause re-enacts the provisions of section 68 of the Education Act 2005 in respect of England. It provides for specific circumstances in which a new maintained school may be planned to be a member of a federation from the outset, and become one as soon as it opens. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is right in his assumption that that relates to what we tend to call a hard federation, as opposed to a softer or more informal one. He mentioned accountability. Even in a hard federation, schools retain their individual identities. They will publish separate results, although they may also decide to publish joint results as well. However, the accountability for results remains clear for each school, and there will be separate admissions processes for the individual schools, so the choice that the hon. Gentleman identified will remain with each school within the federation.
The vision that the hon. Gentleman outlined is apocalyptic, but I do not imagine it to be a serious concern. On the whole, the direction of travel in respect of collaboration and federation is beneficial for the development of standards and local collaboration. We will remove by regulation the current maximum of five for a federation of schools, but I do not foresee the development of unwieldy federations. One of the intentions behind the trust model is that it will provide us with a different way of developing collaboration and joint working between schools. However, to reassure the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that accountability and admissions proposals in respect of federations remain as he asked me to assure him they would.

John Hayes: I take the right hon. Lady’s point about rural schools. There are similar circumstances in my constituency. However, what is the purpose of increasing the number beyond five? In practice, surely one reaches a point at which federation cannot be achieved without compromising the relationship with the local community, the identity of the schools, the historical relationships with parents and so on. Why increase the number? Does the Minister want to set a new limit?

Jacqui Smith: Those are precisely the sorts of issues that the governing body will consider when determining whether it wants to enter into a federation. Let us be quite clear that, in almost every circumstance, decisions about entering into federations are made by governing bodies and, of course, they are interested in the extent to which that would help them to deliver the objectives they had set out for the schools. I tend to think that that would be the logical way to determine the appropriate size of a federation, rather than a centrally imposed limit. There is one circumstance in which a federation would be proposed outside of a decision made by a governing body. It relates to some of the proposals for those schools that are causing concern, which we will come to in part 4 of the Bill. We are suggesting that a local authority could propose a federation as a response to failure in particular schools.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked whether vertical and horizontal federations would come under the clause. The answer is yes, and I agree with the her that there might well be circumstances in which there would be a federation of some primary schools and a secondary school. As well as that structure, horizontal federations of schools in the same phase would be appropriate. Once again, which of those was appropriate would depend on the particular circumstances.
The clause relates to specific provisions for the setting up of a new school. Effectively, it ensures that a governing body is not prevented from setting up a new school as part of a federation. Of course, there is a range of other collaborative arrangements—ranging from soft federations to hard federations—that is outside the remit of the clause, but as I suggested earlier, many of them are desirable and we would want them to be developed.
On the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove), I am happy to take up the specific points that she outlined with respect to Wiltshire. I would be concerned if small local schools were prevented from federating. As my hon. Friend will know, in the toolkit that we produced to deal with falling rolls we proposed that federation may be an effective measure. So, although I do not have the answer today, I will consider the specific case that my hon. Friend outlined and come back to her with a response.
The clause ensures that existing regulations allow those proposing a new school, or the temporary governing body of a school before it opens, to complete the processes normally carried out by the governing body of a school that wishes to become a member of a federation. That involves consulting parents and others about the proposals before taking a final decision. It is a sensible and time-saving provision and may be particularly important to the fresh start of a school in need of additional support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Proposals for discontinuance of schools maintained by local education authority

Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 333, in clause 14, page 10, line 23, leave out ‘rural'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 334, in clause 14, page 10, line 43, leave out subsection (b).
No. 335, in clause 15, page 11, line 8, leave out ‘rural'.
No. 336, in clause 15, page 11, line 11, leave out ‘rural'.
No. 337, in clause 15, page 11, line 26, leave out ‘rural'.

Edward Leigh: This is an important clause. My amendments relate to subsection (4), and Members will see that they deal with four criteria, which must be considered and taken into account by those proposing to close a rural school. I am in favour of subsection (4), and these are sensible criteria. I am delighted that the Minister is obviously concerned about what is going on with the closure of rural schools.
I represent a rural constituency. One of the greatest heartaches over the years has been our campaigns, successful and unsuccessful, to keep open small rural schools. They often involve very small schools, such as the recent campaign in Holton le Moor. At the start of the campaign the school had 17 pupils in total; the closure has now been confirmed with the school roll having fallen to seven pupils. Those who represent urban constituencies may question how a school can be effective with only 17 pupils, but these schools in remote rural areas are often extremely popular and provide a very good education. Some educationists deny this, because year groups have to combine, but I assure hon. Members that the tremendous spirit, care, love and all the rest of it in these primary schools is a joy to behold.
The school that I am talking about now has been in existence for over 100 years. It is at the heart of the community in a small village. It is often heartbreaking when these rural schools close. Often, as happened at Holton le Moor, a school closes because the head teacher is approaching retirement. We now live inquite a competitive environment. There is nothing wrong with that, and of course I support that in terms of education—schools are competing for pupils. Sometimes when a head teacher is approaching retirement or perhaps has a more traditional view of education based on catchment areas, the school may not be as vigorous in recruiting pupils as neighbouring schools. That is obviously what happened in this case. There is nothing wrong with the head teacher; he gave years of loyal service. Equally, in Lincolnshire as elsewhere, we have falling school rolls and this puts pressure on the county council which itself is under pressure from the Department. They have to find schools to close and some of these small schools can be an obvious target.
I have no objections to the subsection. It seems perfectly sensible that when one is closing a rural school one should look at the likely effect of its discontinuance on the local community. It is undoubtedly true that when these villages have lost their village shop, when the church only operates one Sunday a month, and when the school is ripped out, they become almost suburban dormitories, albeit in the middle of the countryside, with no life going on during the day.
Certainly, a county like Lincolnshire is hit extremely badly. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings will confirm, as he is also a Lincolnshire Member, we have a great problem with the cost of school transport. We argue constantly that the Department does not give adequate recompense to the county council to deal with the heavy costs that we have to meet in bussing children around. If a school closes in a village by definition the children have to be transported further afield. Paragraph (b) is very sensible. Paragraph (c) mentions the use of motor vehicles. Obviously if a school closes the use of motor vehicles increases.

John Hayes: As my hon. Friend mentioned my constituency interest, will he say a word in this context about the particular difficulties of providing services in sparsely populated rural areas? Much is said about rurality, but less is said about sparsity. They are different but overlapping factors and have a real impact on local public service provision, including education, and a consequent impact on the need for proper transport. It is worth emphasising that on behalf of sparsely populated rural areas such as those we represent.

Edward Leigh: “Sparsity” is a technical term of art, but it is important to recognise the difficulties that it causes to local authorities such as Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire’s population is evenly distributed throughout the county, whereas counties such as Devon have some areas of high population concentration and others, such as Dartmoor, where there is virtually no one at all. They do not, therefore, suffer as much as Lincolnshire does from the sparsity problem. Because our population is so evenly distributed its transport costs can be very high. That is the point that my hon. Friend was making. All the paragraphs in subsection (4) are perfectly sensible, and I am delighted that the Minister seems to have understood the position. Presumably it is why the provision has been framed as it has.
The reason for my amendments is that, although I have no argument with the idea of considering the criteria in the clause in relation to rural schools, I wonder why the Minister does not consider that many of the factors listed in the relevant paragraphs apply to all primary schools, wherever they are—this may be where I attract the interest of Members representing urban and suburban seats. My amendments would merely ensure that the sensible factors in the provision, which should be considered, would be taken into account when any primary school was closed.
Why, for instance, should the closure of a school affect the local community only if it is in a rural area? I should have thought that if we were to close a school in the heart of an inner city, a suburb or anywhere else the community might well be affected; it might be a big issue. My amendment is intended to tease out from the Minister why she thinks that those factors apply only to rural schools.
Another instance that we might consider concerns
“the availability, and likely cost to the local education authority, of transport to other schools”.
I must now wear my green hat, because of course I am now totally committed to green politics. I have done the school run in London for many years, and it is not only in rural areas, as we know, that people take their kids to school in cars. I do not, therefore, know why the Government think that the likely effect of a closure on transport to other schools is relevant only to rural schools. One need only look around London to see large numbers of 4x4s transporting kids to school. What do the Government mean by that paragraph?
The same argument also applies to paragraph (c) and to considering
“any alternatives to the discontinuance of the school”.
Why does the Minister think local education authorities should not take into account those factors? 
To add insult to injury there is subsection (7)(b). I would like to know what it means. It leaves it to the Secretary of State to define a rural school. That might, surely, be a quite arbitrary decision. The paragraph enables the Secretary of State to choose which primary schools are expendable and which are not. I am sure that that is not the intention, so my amendment would delete that paragraph. It is surely difficult for anyone, let alone the Secretary of State in London, to determine whether a school is rural.
I suppose that I represent four or five traditional market towns and more than 100 villages, but some of the villages are not really villages any more. They are huge suburban communities to the north of Lincoln, which could by no stretch of any definition be termed rural. Presumably there is no difficulty in determining that other villages, with tiny populations of perhaps a dozen or two dozen people, are rural. However, there are many villages in between. How can the Secretary of State choose which primary schools are rural and therefore entitled to the extra defence under subsection (4), by which the local authority must have regard to the various factors?
I am delighted that subsection (4) is in the Bill and that the Government are taking note of rural schools, because, contrary to what many educationists believe, small rural schools provide an excellent service. I want to find out from the Government, however, why they think that the effects on transport and on the community do not apply equally in urban and suburban areas.

Annette Brooke: Perhaps in surprise, I find myselfin total agreement with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I did not quite follow the exact reasoning behind the amendments before I heard his speech, but I am now absolutely convinced of the argument. People struggle with my constituency’s name, but, as may be imagined, Mid-Dorset and North Poole is a mix of urban and rural communities. It has village schools that struggle for numbers, while in the more urban areas there are very large primary schools that possibly suffer in funding because of the existence of other schools.
Nevertheless, the contribution of those other schools to the local community is so great that a value must be put on it, and I agree that the closure of a school situated in an locality classified as urban might be just as devastating as the closure of a rural primary school. I support the sentiments that underlie the amendments.

Nadine Dorries: I, too, support the amendments. Although I represent a rural constituency, I have spent most of my life in the city of Liverpool, so I am in a strange position because, although the provisions have advantages for my constituency, I am slightly aggrieved for the schools of my home city, where the same considerations would not apply.
In mid-Bedfordshire there are three, small, urban conurbations, but there are many rural schools in the constituency. We have been in the strange situation of discussing whether to go from the three-tier system to the two-tier system, which may result in some school closures, and we are currently in the consultation period and we know that that would have a devastating effect. The constituency is rural, so there are not that many roads, but if local, rural schools began to close we would find ourselves in the bizarre position of having gridlock during rush hours, because the roads already get into that kind of state.
Nevertheless, the fact that consideration is being given to rural schools but not to schools in cities and urban areas is of some concern, and I ask the Minister why schools in cities such as Liverpool would not merit the same consideration. I support the comments of my hon. Friend. Subsection (4) is excellent for mid-Bedfordshire but does not have any bearing on urban areas, which seems unfair to schools in cities such as Liverpool.

Nick Gibb: I want to raise one quick point with the Minister. My hon. Friend mentioned that the definition of a rural primary school is in subsection (7)(b), which says that
“‘rural primary school’ means a primary school designated as such for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State.”
In the Minister’s letter of 27 March to Committee members, the only illustrative regulations circulated in relation to clause 14 are the School Organisation (Establishment and Discontinuance of Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2006. In my reading of those I could not see a definition of a rural primary school. Will the Minister shed some light on that?

Jacqui Smith: As has been discussed during our deliberations on this group of amendments, the Government take the role of rural schools seriously. In fact, the protections in clauses 14 and 15 for rural schools reflect amendments made during the passage of the Education Act 2005, but there was already recognition in legislation and in the processes for the consideration of school closures of the importance to their communities of rural schools, and we support and encourage their preservation.
Notwithstanding the important points that have been made by hon. Members about the difficult decisions in respect of any school closure—in a moment, I shall talk in detail about the processes involved in that—there are specific issues relating to rural schools, particularly primary schools. For example, often they provide services beyond educational ones. That is becoming increasingly important with the development of extended schools. Such schools might well be centres for local child care provision as well as other services—for example, some rural schools run the local post office, too—so they have a significance beyond educational services. If a rural school closes, it is more likely that there is not another school within walking distance, which is an important consideration. That is why in statutory guidance to those who decide on school organisation proposals we have a presumption against the closure of rural schools, and have had for some time. Since 1998, that has brought about a big reduction in the number of rural school closures per year.
The provisions of clause 14 require any local authority or governing body preparing proposals for a rural school closure to consider the potential impact on the community, transport implications and possible alternatives to closure. Clause 15 requires that body to consult parents, the local authority and district and parish councils before publishing those proposals. The vast majority of authorities and governing bodies would take those steps without such requirements in the Bill, but their inclusion puts those important steps beyond doubt. As I outlined, we attach special importance to the preservation of rural schools if they contribute to standards, are wanted by parents and have the support of the local education community.
The hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for Gainsborough asked about the designation of rural primary schools. On the 30 March, we wrote to directors of children’s services in England and diocesan directors of education, and asked them about that issue, particularly with respect to the commencement of section 70 of the Education Act 2005 which puts in place proposals for a specific designation of “rural primary school”. We identified for each local authority, those schools that we think come within that category. In preparing the draft order in which we will designate certain schools as “rural primary schools”, we used the rural indicator on the EduBase register to identify those schools.
In case hon. Members are not aware, that register is an indicator based on the Office for National Statistics’ rural indicator developed by the Countryside Agency, the Office for National Statistics, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly. It is the same indicator to which decision makers refer when considering proposals to close rural schools in relation to the presumption against closure that I have outlined already.
As I said, we asked directors of children’s services for their comments on the proposed inclusion of a list, which we attached for each of those 150 authorities, of primary schools in the area that we intend to include in the designation order as “rural schools”. We also said specifically:
“You should consult the schools as appropriate when considering the list. We will review the designation order annually and will consult individual local authorities and dioceses on proposed changes as appropriate.”
Not only are we using a recognised measure of the nature of a school that could be designated as rural, but we are also inviting consultation responsesfrom directors of children’s services and diocesan authorities, and asking them to discuss that with the schools before including them on a list, which we shall then be willing to review in order to keep it up to date.

John Hayes: The recognised measure that the Minister describes does indeed take account of sparsity in the mix of considerations that it uses to define rurality, but given the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, will she look again at the circumstances of a large area with a sparse population, such as the county of Lincolnshire? There are concerns that, even though the measure takes sparsity into account, it is given insufficient weight where sparsity affects the whole of a county. It does so rarely, but that is certainly the case for Lincolnshire. Would she have another look at that?

Jacqui Smith: Of course it will be possible for the director of children’s services in Lincolnshire, when considering the designated list, to comment if schools have been left off that the director considers to be rural. We are inviting comments from directors of children’s services by Friday 23 June. I am not convinced that individual schools would be excluded because of the measures that we have used, but we are consulting precisely because we want to ensure that the list is right.
The amendments, as we have heard, are probing amendments about the extent to which we should extend the requirements to all cases where a local authority or governing body proposes to close any category of primary school. I know only too well—I am sure that other hon. Members do as well—how sensitive school closure proposals can be for pupils, parents, staff and others who might be affected. We would not expect a decision to close any school to be taken lightly. I would not want hon. Members to think that because we are discussing the specifics of the closure of rural schools, that implies somehow or other that there is not an important and significant process for the consideration of the closure of any school, primary or secondary.
Responding to the proposed amendments to clause 14—amendments Nos. 333 and 334—as I have said, those considering making proposals to close any school will consider a range of factors, including the impact on standards, pupil number forecasts, the pattern of parental demand and levels of diversity in addition to the factors in clause 14. The body that takes the final decision on such proposals will expect to see evidence and well reasoned arguments for closure on those and a range of other factors. Establishing a statutory requirement to consider the four factors set out in clause 14 could be misinterpreted. For example, it might be read as lessening the importance of the other factors that I have spelt out. I do not think that there is a defensible argument for treating primary school closures as a whole differently, as that would bring into doubt whether the issues that I have outlined should be considered with respect to all school closures, rural and urban.
I turn now to clause 15 and amendments Nos. 335, 336 and 337. Those preparing to publish any type of statutory proposal, including for closure, must consult any such persons as appear appropriate. In doing so, they are required to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance. That guidance already exists and is in operation. It includes the parties listed in the provision. If the decision maker wanted to set that guidance aside and not consult some of those parties, they would have to have an extremely good reason; if not, they could be subject to a judicial review. I cannot see any reason to make special provision and to treat primary school closures differently from any other type of school closure.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members not only that we take the specific position of rural schools seriously, which is the reason for the presumption relating to closure and the provisions that we have made, but that we have in place robust guidance and processes for proposing and considering the closure of all types of school—rural or urban, secondary or primary. We fear that the amendments would put in question the robustness of those arrangements, which is why I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough feels reassured and able to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Leigh: I am pleased that we have had this debate. It has given the Minister the opportunity to put on record the importance that she attaches to rural schools and the factors that might apply to them—for instance, the fact that they provide other services to the local community. I am very reassured by that and by the fact that factors such as the effect on a local community and local transport will be taken into account before an urban or suburban school is closed.
I am less convinced by her argument that such factors cannot be included in the Bill in the case of an urban school because they might somehow detract from the importance of other elements. Surely that argument could also apply to rural schools. I am still slightly worried about why subsection (4) appliesonly to rural schools. However, if I were to press the amendment to a Division, it might be misunderstood outside the Committee. Some people might come to the incorrect conclusion that I somehow wanted to lessen the protection of rural schools.
Somewhat reassured by the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Chaytor: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in clause 14, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
‘(aa) the effect of the discontinuance of the school upon the ability of the local education authority, andupon the governing bodies of other schools maintained by that authority, to continue to perform and carry out the duties and functions in relation to education imposed upon them by this or any other enactment,'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 31, in clause 14, page 10, line 26, leave out
‘to the local education authority'.

David Chaytor: Amendment No. 100 would insert an additional criterion into subsection (4). It brings a new dimension to the debate. I do not want to repeat the arguments that we have already been through—the hon. Member for Gainsborough put the case extremely well and made an important argument for having a set of criteria that applies to all potential school closures. That would be helpful to local authorities and governing bodies in preparing their proposals. He could have made the case for deleting not only the word “rural” but the words “primary school,” because the arguments apply equally to secondary schools.
Amendment No. 100 would ensure that the wider system of schooling in a given area would have to be considered before decisions on school closures were taken. It draws particular attention to the capacity of the local authority and of other schools to continue to perform and carry out their duties and functions—that is, to run viable schools with a broad and balanced curriculum. That is an important dimension. Too often in the case of school closures, we look in a rather narrow way at the individual school and the immediate impact on the community that it serves. In most parts of the country—rural areas are arguably an exception—there is a network of interrelated schools and it is difficult to take decisions on one school without there being a wider impact.
My recollection is that subsection (4) emerged as a compromise during the debate on the EducationAct 2005 because of a Government defeat in the Lords, so it may not be in the Bill for the most logical reason, having come about as a result of a political fudge. There is, however, a strong case for strengthening it to apply to all schools, both primary and secondary, and including an additional criterion to focus on the impact of the whole network of schools on a given local authority.
This is not an argument for or against closing schools, or for increasing or reducing the likelihood of their closure; it is simply an argument that all local authorities and governing bodies should act in accordance with an agreed set of criteria that have credibility and take all factors into account. I am currently involved with a school closure in my constituency and during the past nine years I have supported the closure of a number of schools in my constituency. I know how sensitive such issues are and how easy it is for parents not to understand a local authority’s wider reasons for proposing such closures. I know how easy it is for parents to adopt a very narrow focus on the impact on their child in the immediate future. Those cannot be the only criteria; we have to take a wider view.
I have another point, which was made particularly effectively by the 2003 Ofsted report on pupil place planning and more recently by the Audit Commission’s submission to Education and Skills Committee’s inquiry on the White Paper. Attention was focused on the relationship between quality and popularity. There is a tendency to believe that when a school seems to be losing pupils or when, for a variety of reasons, it does not have as many pupils as the neighbouring school down the road, that is a reflection of quality. Myright hon. Friend the Minister stressed the important criteria of standards, parental preference and diversity in determining any school closure, but that is not a simple and straightforward matter because parental preference may be exercised in favour of school A rather than school B for a variety of reasons other than an objective assessment of the quality of the school.
I am putting down a marker in support of the argument that we need to consider the wider impact on the local system of any school closure. We should separate the issues of popularity and of quality. There may well be very good schools—occasionally high-performing ones—that are not judged to be popular schools, based on the patterns of parental preference. It is a mistake always to go for popularity rather than quality as the key criterion for a decision on the future of a school.

Nick Gibb: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is now downplaying the importance and validity of parental preference and choice in an area? When he moved his amendment during the debate on the previous clause, he cited how important parental choice and involvement are in establishing new schools.

David Chaytor: No, that is not the case at all. It is not an either/or matter. I think that the situation is slightly more complex than the official Opposition would have us believe.
Popularity does not equate to quality. A simple example of why that could be the case is the fact that many schools happen to have been built—whether it was 20, 30, 40, 50 or 100 years ago—in the wrong location. They were built to serve a community that existed then but economic change has meant thatthose communities no longer exist, or that thelocal population has declined greatly. That causes difficulties. If a school is trapped by its geography and a decision on its location that was taken many years ago and it cannot draw on new areas of residential housing, it will struggle for ever to increase its numbers—unless it is able to reach out to new groups of parents in adjacent areas. However, that does not mean that it is a poor or unpopular school. It may well be popular with those parents within easy travelling distance who can send their children to that school.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I can see some sense in his argument. However, is his view not at variance with the basic premise of the Bill, which is that greater parental choice and greater responsiveness to the choices they make are likely to drive up quality? Is that premise right or wrong?

David Chaytor: In relation to previous amendments, I said that parental choice is important. My criticism of the arrangements in the schooling system in England and Wales is that we confuse parental choice with institutional choice. In many parts of the country, schools determine which pupils will attend. Parents do not have an absolute right to send their children to certain schools. The point of my amendment is that parental choice does not happen in a vacuum; there are a series of constraints. Most parents understand that there is no such thing as pure parental choice. The system cannot be based on pure parental choice without building in vast excess capacity. The issue is how parental choice is managed and regulated and the framework in which it operates.
Amendment No. 100 suggests that when a decision is taken about the future of an individual school, the framework must include the consideration of the decision’s impact on neighbouring schools.

Nick Gibb: I am not unsympathetic to thehon. Gentleman’s amendment. School closure has implications not only for the community that it serves directly, but for the schools that are required to educate the children who would previously have been educated at that school. Amendment No. 31 would ensure that the matters that must be taken into account before deciding whether to close a school, as set out in subsection (4), should include the increased transportation costs that would accrue as a result of the closure. Subsection (4)(b) provides that the likely additional cost of transport that would accrue to the local authority must be taken into account, but it says nothing about the likely costs to individual parents. They are just as much costs to the community as costs incurred by local authorities. We shall debate school transport issues under part 6, but it is incongruous that in determining the efficacy of a school closure, costs that might be incurred by local authorities should be a factor in determining whether the school should close, but costs to individual parents should not.
The Forum for Rural Children and Young People points out that rural children and young people often find school transport unresponsive to their needs. Those problems are echoed by the social exclusion unit in its report on transport and social exclusion, “Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion”. The report noted that children in some areas are prevented from taking part in extra-curricular activities because of a lack of public transport at the required time. The Central Council of Physical Recreation is quoted in the report as saying that in one school, 40 to 45 per cent. of pupils were missing out on after-school activities owing to transport constraints.
The report also highlighted more general concerns about the availability of transport in rural areas.More than half of people in rural areas live more than 13 minutes’ walk away from an hourly daytime bus service, and 29 per cent. of rural settlements have no bus service at all. The lack of public transport, combined with the lack and cost of taxis, leave people unable to get to key places. Some rural families have to go without certain things in order to afford to run a car. The cost of transport would also be an issue if a denominational school were closed in a rural area.
Our amendment would therefore remove the words
“to the local education authority”
from subsection (4)(b) to make it provide simply that the matters that should be taken into account are the availability and likely cost of transport to other schools.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, amendment No. 100 would add to the criteria listed in subsection (4). In particular it would ensure that, when a school was being considered for closure, the impact on other schools in the area and on the local education authority—especially in relation to its ability to provide parents with diversity and choice in school provision—would be considered. I also seek an assurance from the Minister that, when a closure process is to go ahead, it will be properly managedand that all relevant factors will be taken into consideration.

Annette Brooke: I would like to make a brief comment on amendment No. 100. I very much support the sentiments behind it, but I wonder whether it should refer to local authorities in the plural, to cover instances of schools on boundaries. Poole unitary authority has schools on its boundaries—except for the one with the sea. Schools on the boundary with other authorities suffer knock-on effects and it can be difficult to get both authorities, which have their own budgets, to take the decision that is best for the community overall. In the proposed reorganisation it is proposed to delay any activity in respect of a large and excellent comprehensive school that is right on a boundary. That causes considerable concern among constituents who live in the adjoining local authority. I should like the amendment to be strengthened to cover the cross-boundary issues.
I have some sympathy with the intention behind amendment No. 31, although I am not quite sure whether that would be achieved.

Jacqui Smith: We have got on well this morning, have we not? Just before I start, for the information of the Committee, I should point out that when we break for lunch information will be available for hon. Members to consider alongside clauses 17 to 19—in case we are fortunate enough to reach those this afternoon. I do not want to push my luck, but I am hopeful.
To deal first with amendment No. 100, as we discussed on the previous group of amendments, we already make special provision when it is proposed to close a rural primary school. We require local authorities to consider a range of specific factors; that requirement reflects an addition to the present arrangements under an amendment to the Education Act 2005. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North is right about the provenance of that amendment, but it was built on a presumption against the closure of rural schools that the Government had already established for decision makers. For the reasons that I gave previously we strongly support the continuation of rural schools that have strong parental support and contribute to the community and to education standards in their area.
My hon. Friend rightly argued that it is important to consider the wider implications of proposals to close schools. Those proposals would be made only by the local education authority or the governing body of a foundation or voluntary school. Given the potential impact of closing a rural primary school, we shall require the local authority or governing body when drawing up school closure proposals to consider whether there are any alternative options. They should consider the impact on the local community; the availability and cost to the local authority of transport to alternative schools; and the increased use of cars by parents who must drive their children to school.

Frank Cook: Order. The Committee will have observed a Government Front-Bench representative approach the Chair seeking permission to deposit on the Table material for consideration alongside clauses 17 and 19. The Chair has been quite pleased to be able to grant permission retrospectively for that.

It being One o’clock,The Chairmanadjournedthe Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.